1 2026:CGHC:1417 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 203 of 2026 Arjun Soni S/o Moti Soni Aged About 33 Years Auto Driver, R/o Jhanda Chowk Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikarapara, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.01.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.229/2025 registered at Police Station Tikarapara, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Earlier the First Bail Application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2025 in MCRC No. 9374/2025, on merit. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that written complaint was lodged alleging that the applicant along with other co-accused have cheated with PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.01.09 17:54:53 +0530 2 him and in total 54 bank accounts a sum of Rs. 21,97,673/- was found to be deposited, and the applicant and other co-accused are said to have involved in the said online fraud. Hence, this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He further submits that identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Vikas Madhwani, Jitendra Bagh, Priya Sori and Bhavika Harchandani have already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide common order dated 18.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 5615/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16298/2025, Criminal Appeal No. 5616/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17964/2025, Criminal Appeal No. 5617/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19330/2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 5618/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19243/2025, respectively and the regular bail of the co-accused, namely, Nitesh Kumar Sharma has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 15/2026, the applicant is in jail since 27.03.2025, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is alleged to be one of the holders of a bank account identified as a "mule account," which was used for receiving and transferring money obtained through cyber fraud, thereby facilitating the commission of cyber offences. Therefore, present applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the 3 documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 27.03.2025, the fact that though the applicant is alleged to be one of the holders of a bank account identified as a "mule account," which was used for receiving and transferring money obtained through cyber fraud, thereby facilitating the commission of cyber offences, but considering the fact that identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Vikas Madhwani, Jitendra Bagh. Priya Sori and Bhavika Harchandani have already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide common order dated 18.12.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 5615/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16298/2025, Criminal Appeal No. 5616/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17964/2025, Criminal Appeal No. 5617/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19330/2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 5618/2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19243/2025, respectively, further the regular bail of the co-accused, namely, Nitesh Kumar Sharma has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 15/2026, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and charge-sheet has been filed, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. In view of the principle of parity and considering the submissions that the applicants have been falsely implicated, this Court is of the view that the applicants are also entitled to the benefit of bail. While the offences alleged are serious, the applicants' release on bail shall be subject to appropriate conditions to ensure that the trial proceeds without obstruction and that the applicant does not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. Accordingly, the instant second bail application of the 4 applicant is allowed. 9. Let applicant, Arjun Soni, involved in Crime No.229/2025 registered at Police Station Tikarapara, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 5 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti